Use one or both of the first two paragraphs
The Environment Agency advises; where a site lies in Flood Zone 2, it is necessary for any planning application to be supported by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which can demonstrate that the 'development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.
The Environment Agency has advised that they would expect that any FRA submitted with an application was up-to-date, especially in areas where the Flood Map for Planning has been significantly revised. This would be needed to allow the LPA to make an informed decision on accurate information
Issues with this application
The outline application included a FRA dated June 2015 which is out of date. An up to date flood risk assessment is required before being able to determine the reserved matters application.
The out of date Flood Risk Assessment ('FRA') states there will be no development within flood zone 2.
Para 1.3 of the out of date FRA states all development would be in flood zone 1 for development as this site is 'more vulnerable to flooding therefore the development would see an increase in flood risk to the site'.
Para 1.5 of the FRA references use of attenuation tanks in the green open space (now flood zone 2) however the impact this will have on the subsidence risk to neighbouring properties is unknown.
The ability to install attenuation tanks within an area of land that is prone to flooding is not addressed in the reserved matters application submission.
Paragraph 4.6 of the out of date FRA identifies that residential developments in flood zone 2 should be subject to sequential testing. This has not been undertaken.
The Planning Officer has confirmed that the Environment Agency has been consulted and the advice is that SDC needs to 'satisfy itself with regard to the need for a sequential test and if satisfied to check if an exception test also needs to be done'. There is no evidence that a sequential test has been carried out, or any indication that the Council is satisfied with regard to this consideration.
No consideration of the the flood defence barrier changes as commissioned by the Tadcaster Flood Group has been addressed in terms of mitigating flood risk
There is no explanation of how requiring a minimum floor level will not increase flooding risk through the loss of floodplain capacity and the consequent impacts of this loss of capacity elsewhere within the catchment. Unless alternative capacity is provided, the construction of dwellings within flood zone 2 has to result in a loss of capacity.
The only risk mitigation identified within the FRA was that development would not take place within Flood Zone 2, and informed the inclusion of clause 22 within the S106.
The Planning Authority provided condition 22 'All dwellings shall be located within Flood Zone 1 ...' for the specific purpose of reducing the risk of flooding. Due to the change in the Flood Zone, the Applicant cannot fulfil its obligation under the Section 106.
Andrew Fraser-Urquhart QC has provided a clear and unequivocal view in relation the legality of seeking to approve this reserved matters application, that it is a turn of events and the correct interpretation of a condition imposed on the outline permission itself which means that the site cannot, in fact, be developed for residential purposes. This is a consequence not of anything which has happened at the reserved matters stage but simply the correct application of the conditions in the main outline permission
The Applicant has had sufficient time (over 18 months) to provide an up to date Flood Risk Assessment in support of their Application and has chosen not to.
The lack of an up to date FRA in support of the Application is in itself grounds for refusal of the Application.
Less than four weeks after outline planning consent was granted much of the Selby District suffered severe flooding.
The Environment Agency has revised their flood maps, indicating that the vast majority of Church Fenton now falls within Flood Zone 2. As such, by allowing this development to proceed the Council will be placing both lives and properties at risk.
There have been two recent flood incidents, in March the Wharfe flooded land in Tadcaster near to property and in October the Ouse and the Aire both overtopped their banks and flooded agricultural land. This confirms the risk of flooding is real.
New homes should not be built in accordance with a condition written with reference to flood maps which are now known to be out of date, and which therefore no longer meets the original objective which was to 'Reduce flood risk to properties'.
If the LPA attempts to circumnavigate the need for an up to date FRA by requiring a condition, this would result in a granting of permission without knowing whether the risk of flooding could be adequately mitigated.
I am sure you are aware the Community has recently taken on two public works loans to ensure the services within our village for pub and shop were maintained. As the up to date flood assessments are missing, the opportunity to mitigate the risk will be lost. Is the Council prepared to support us by paying for our public works loan while these business, which are in the close vicinity to the proposed development, are under flood water? Surely this is contrary to any public, economic or sustainability benefits.
